Quell - I think lots of different types of therapy also work with "parts" I know my T does what I would consider to be a lot of parts work and she is client-centered (Rogerian). My other T does no parts work at all. I've found both to be effective for me even despite my very strong inclination towards parts work because of the way I experience myself and how I think (it's a very good way for me to connect w/ myself).

If you find doing IFS work is a good fit for you then I'd go with that - but maybe meet the Ts you are considering first since (as they say) a lot of it has to do too with the type of bond you have with your T and you could probe them for more information about their ACTUAL practices/experience/ideas. I don't think one matters over another, your personal preference matters though. I know Ts who are trained in EMDR for example (which isn't a theoretical orientation but more of a "tool") learn "parts"/ego state work. Many T also have experience over the years with people who experience themselves and their work more fluidly in pieces than wholes so even if their general orientation is one way they may have adapted or integrated other things in their approach through experience.

Anyway, sorry if that's not much help I wish I had experience with either but I really do think that orientation is more the general 'direction' a T is going not necessarily the specific path in that direction they are on. Best of luck to you!

Thanks Cat.

I talked to my regular T a bit about the parts stuff today and my choice to continue with him rather than switch to the parts T. Apparently I had a lot of ground to cover today and he didn't get much of a word in edgewise. Next time I'll ask him more about what he thinks.

I think you are right that there seems to be some overlap in approaches and theories, even if the T doesn't strictly do IFS. Your idea about considering the general direction you and the T are going in therapy is good to think about,too.

Thank you. Glad the parts work works for you, too.

Quell